Worth High School Lawsuit

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 1 of 36

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIAALBANY DIVISION________________________________)K.A., a minor, by and through her next )friend and guardian, Lisa Adams,))T.S., a minor, by and through her next )friend and guardian, Gigi Smith,))B.S., a minor, by and through his next )friend and guardian, Figen Guillot,))S.M.,) CLASS ACTION)A.W., a minor, by and through her next ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ______friend and guardian, Rhonda Norris,)) JURY TRIAL REQUESTEDD.J., a minor, by and through his next )friend and guardian, Lucetta Jordan,) COMPLAINT)K.P.,))L.H., a minor, by and through her next )friend and guardian, Joey Haire,))J.E., a minor, by and through his next )friend and guardian, Joelandon Dixon, ))on behalf of themselves and a class of )similarly situated persons,))Plaintiffs,))v.))JEFF HOBBY, Sheriff of Worth)County, Georgia, in his individual)capacity,)

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 2 of 36

)JOHN BRANNEN, Deputy,)Worth County Sheriffas Office,)in his individual capacity,))RAY GREENE, Deputy,)Worth County Sheriffas Office,)in his individual capacity,))TYLER TURNER, Deputy,)Worth County Sheriffas Office,)in his individual capacity,))BRANDI WHIDDON, Deputy,)Worth County Sheriffas Office,)in her individual capacity,))JOHN or JANE DOES 1-25, Deputies, )Worth County Sheriffas Office,)in their individual capacities,))Defendants.)________________________________ )COMPLAINTPlaintiffs K.A., T.S., B.S., A.W., D.J., L.H., and J.E., by and through theirnext friends and guardians, and S.M. and K.P. (collectively, aPlaintiffsa), on behalfof themselves and the class alleged herein, state as follows for their complaint:I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT1.

This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ASS 1983

arising from a mass search of around 900 students at Worth County High School atthe direction of Worth County Sheriff Jeff Hobby.

2

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 3 of 36

2.

Plaintiffs bring this action to redress violations of the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and similar provisionsof the Georgia Constitution.3.

Plaintiffs, the putative class representatives, are nine Worth County

High School students who, like hundreds of their peers, were subjected to unlawfuland intrusive searches of their persons by employees of the Worth County SheriffasOffice acting at the direction of Sheriff Hobby.4.

Defendantsa mass search of all or nearly all Worth County High

School students took place on Friday, April 14, 2017. On that date, Sheriff Hobbyand his deputies placed the high school on alockdowna for four hours. About 40uniformed officers from five law enforcement agencies arrived on school grounds.Educational programs were interrupted, students were directed to remain inspecified areas without any explanation as to what was happening, and studentsacell phones were seized.5.

Starting at about 8:00 a.m. on April 14, Defendants, under the direct

orders and supervision of Sheriff Hobby, and assisted by officers from otheragencies,1 conducted a drug sweep, indiscriminately searching all or nearly all

Officers from the Crisp, Dooly, and Turner County sheriffas offices and the ForsythPolice Department responded to Sheriff Hobbyas request for assistance that day, butare not named as defendants. Upon information and belief, none of the officers fromthese other agencies participated in searches of studentsa bodies.1

3

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 4 of 36

studentsa persons and clothes, and using police dogs to search their bags,classrooms, lockers, and cars.6.

The Sheriffas mass search included a hands-on, body search of every

or nearly every student in attendance at school that day, including students withdisabilities.7.

Defendantsa searches of students were intrusive, performed in an

aggressive manner, and done in full view of other students. For example:a)

The purported justification for the mass search was to discover drugs.

To that end, Sheriff Hobby had a list of thirteen students on a atarget lista that hesuspected of possessing drugs. The atarget lista included only three students whowere in school on April 14. Defendants had no basis for suspecting any otherstudent of involvement in unlawful activity.10.

No illegal controlled substances or drug paraphernalia were

discovered during the mass search.11.

Defendants had no right to touch, pat-down, or manipulate the body

parts of Plaintiffs or other students. Defendants had no right to search Plaintiffsaclothes and undergarments. Defendantsa unlawful conduct injured Plaintiffs bycausing them fear, embarrassment, stress, and humiliation.12.

Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory relief for members of a class

of all students seized and searched by Worth County Sheriffas Office employees atWorth County High School on April 14, 2017, other than those identified on theSheriffas target list.II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE13.

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ASS 1983 and the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Courthas subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ASS 1331, as this action arises

5

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 6 of 36

under the laws and Constitution of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C.ASS 1343, as it seeks to redress civil rights violations.14.

Plaintiffs also bring state-law claims arising out of the same events

and occurrences, and the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over theseclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ASS 1367. Declaratory relief is available pursuant to 28U.S.C. ASS 2201.15.

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ASS 1391, because at least one

Defendant resides in this district and all Defendants reside in this state, andbecause a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims set forth in thiscomplaint occurred within this district and this division.III. PARTIESA. Plaintiffs16.

Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and, at all times relevant to

this complaint, were residents of Georgia.K.A.17.

Plaintiff K.A. is a 16-year-old student who was enrolled in the 10th

grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She bringssuit through her mother and next friend, Lisa Adams. Defendant Whiddon seizedK.A. and performed a search of K.A.as person, as further described herein.

6

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 7 of 36

Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had no individualizedsuspicion or any reason to believe that K.A. had engaged in any unlawful activity.T.S.18.

Plaintiff T.S. is a 16-year-old student who was enrolled in the 10th

grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She bringssuit through her mother and next friend, Gigi Smith. Defendant Jane Doe 1 seizedT.S. and performed a search of T.S.as person, as further described herein. JaneDoe 1 performed this search even though Defendants had no individualizedsuspicion or any reason to believe that T.S. had engaged in any unlawful activity.B.S.19.

Plaintiff B.S. is a 15-year-old student who was enrolled in the 9th

grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. He bringssuit through his mother and next friend, Figen Guillot. Defendant Brannen seizedB.S. and performed a search of B.S.as person, as further described herein. Brannenperformed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion orany reason to believe that B.S. had engaged in any unlawful activity.

7

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 8 of 36

S.M.20.

Plaintiff S.M. is an 18-year-old who was enrolled in the 12th grade at

Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year.2 DefendantWhiddon seized S.M. and performed a search of S.M.as person, as furtherdescribed herein. Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had noindividualized suspicion or any reason to believe that S.M. had engaged in anyunlawful activity.A.W.21.

Plaintiff A.W. is a 15-year-old student who was enrolled in the 9th

grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She bringssuit through her mother and next friend, Rhonda Norris. Defendant Whiddonseized A.W. and performed a search of A.W.as person, as further described herein.Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had no individualizedsuspicion or any reason to believe that A.W. had engaged in any unlawful activity.

S.M. will seek a protective order requiring the litigants to refer to her by her initialsin public filings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e). S.M. has good cause to seek a protectiveorder because: (1) S.M. was a student at the time of the incident described herein;(2) this lawsuit involves sensitive allegations that a law enforcement officer touchedprivate parts of S.M.as body; and (3) the named plaintiffs who are minors areidentified by their initials. See id.2

8

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 9 of 36

D.J.22.

Plaintiff D.J. is a 16-year-old student who was enrolled in the 10th

grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. He bringssuit through his mother and next friend, Lucetta Jordan. Defendant Greene seizedD.J. and performed a search of D.J.as person, as further described herein. Greeneperformed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion orany reason to believe that D.J. had engaged in any unlawful activity.K.P.23.

Plaintiff K.P. is an 18-year-old who was enrolled in the 12th grade at

Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year.3 DefendantWhiddon seized K.P. and performed a search of K.P.as person, as further describedherein. Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had noindividualized suspicion or any reason to believe that K.P. had engaged in anyunlawful activity.

K.P. will seek a protective order requiring the litigants to refer to her by her initialsin public filings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e). K.P. has good cause to seek a protectiveorder because: (1) K.P. was a student at the time of the incident described herein; (2)this lawsuit involves sensitive allegations that a law enforcement officer touchedprivate parts of K.P.as body; and (3) the named plaintiffs who are minors areidentified by their initials. See id.3

9

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 10 of 36

L.H.24.

Plaintiff L.H. is a 15-year-old student who was enrolled in the 9th

grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She bringssuit through her father and next friend, Joey Haire. Defendant Whiddon seizedL.H. and performed a search of L.H.as person, as further described herein.Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had no individualizedsuspicion or any reason to believe that L.H. had engaged in any unlawful activity.J.E.25.

Plaintiff J.E. is a 16-year-old student who was enrolled in the 10th

grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. He bringssuit through his father and next friend, Joelandon Dixon. Defendant Turner seizedJ.E. and performed a search of J.E.as person, as further described herein. Turnerperformed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion orany reason to believe that J.E. had engaged in any unlawful activity.B. DefendantsJeff Hobby26.

Jeff Hobby is the Sheriff of Worth County, Georgia. He planned,

ordered, orchestrated, executed, and directly supervised the conduct of his deputiesin conducting the April 14, 2017, body searches of all or nearly all students atWorth County High School. Hobby was present at the school during the mass

10

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 11 of 36

search, intended for his deputies to conduct the body searches described herein,instructed his deputies to conduct the body searches described herein, andpersonally observed many of the searches as they were being conducted. As such,there is a direct causal connection between Hobbyas actions and the constitutionalviolations that occurred. Hobby acted under color of law and violated the clearlyestablished constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. Hobby is sued in his individualcapacity. He is a resident of Georgia.John Brannen27.

John Brannen is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriffas

Office. Brannen personally participated in the physical body searches of malestudents at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Brannen performedunlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on Plaintiff B.S. and other students.He did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualizedsuspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not onthe target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful orprohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly establishedconstitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individualcapacity. Brannen is a resident of Georgia.

11

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 12 of 36

Ray Greene28.

Ray Greene is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriffas

Office. Greene personally participated in the physical body searches of malestudents at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Greene performedunlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on Plaintiff D.J. and others. He didso even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or anyreason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target listhad engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibiteditems. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly establishedconstitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individualcapacity. Greene is a resident of Georgia.Tyler Turner29.

Tyler Turner is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriffas

Office. Turner personally participated in the physical body searches of malestudents at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Turner performedunlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on Plaintiff J.E. and others. He didso even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or anyreason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target listhad engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibiteditems. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established

12

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 13 of 36

constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individualcapacity. Turner is a resident of Georgia.Brandi Whiddon30.

Brandi Whiddon is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriffas

Office. Whiddon personally participated in the physical body searches of femalestudents at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Whiddon performedunlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on Plaintiffs K.A., S.M., A.W., andothers. She did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualizedsuspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not onthe target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful orprohibited items. She acted under color of law and violated the clearly establishedconstitutional rights of the students she searched. Whiddon is sued in herindividual capacity. She is a resident of Georgia.John or Jane Does 1-2531.

John or Jane Does 1-25 are employees of the Worth County Sheriffas

Office who physically searched the bodies of students at Worth County HighSchool on April 14, 2017. They did so even though they had no probable cause,individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that Plaintiffs or any otherstudent not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed anyunlawful or prohibited items. They acted under color of law and violated the

13

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 14 of 36

clearly established constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. They are sued in theirindividual capacities. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of these employees, butwill amend this complaint to include their true names as soon as possible.4 Uponinformation and belief, John or Jane Does 1-25 are residents of Georgia.IV. CLASS ALLEGATIONS32.

and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of similarlysituated persons. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as all students seized andsearched by Worth County Sheriffas Office employees at Worth County HighSchool on April 14, 2017, other than those identified on the Sheriffas target list.5

Documentation relating to the mass search suggests that all deputies employed bythe Worth County Sheriffas Office were involved in the search. Sheriff Hobbyissued a memorandum on April 4, 2017, instructing all deputies to report to work at7:45 a.m. on the morning of the search for briefing. Although Plaintiffs do notpresently know the names of these deputies, they are identified with 29 numbers inHobbyas memorandum. These numbers are: W2, W10, W14, W15, W16, W17,W18, W19, W20, W21, W22, W23, W24, W25, W26, W27, W28, W29, W30, W31,W32, W33, W34, W35, W36, W37, W38, W39, and W41. Plaintiffs will requestthat the Court permit early discovery, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure26(d)(1), limited to that necessary to learn the identities of the other deputies whoconducted body searches of students. Video recordings in the custody ofadministrators of Worth County High School will likely reveal the identities of thedeputies who conducted the body searches.4

As further alleged herein, the three students on the Sheriffas target list in attendancethat day were detained and searched in administrative offices at the school, ratherthan in the hallways or gym with the rest of their classmates.5

14

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 15 of 36

33.

Plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) in that:a)

The class is so numerous that joinder of all members isimpracticable. The class consists of nearly all of the students inattendance at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017aapproximately 900 students.

b)

Every class memberas claim turns on the following question,which is therefore common to the class: whether a lawenforcement officer may seize and search a studentas body andpersonal belongings, for purposes of discovering evidence ofcriminal activity, without any justification or information aboutthe student other than that he or she is enrolled at a particularschool.

c)

The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims ofthe class because each member of the class was searched at thedirection of Sheriff Hobby, by one of his deputies, at WorthCounty High School, on April 14, 2017, for the same purpose,and with the same absence of any individualized suspicion.

d)

The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect theinterests of the class. The Plaintiffs possess the requisitepersonal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and possess

15

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 16 of 36

no interests adverse to other class members. The Plaintiffs arerepresented by attorneys at the Southern Center for HumanRights, a nonprofit organization with extensive experience incivil rights class action litigation, and Horsley Begnaud LLC, alaw firm with extensive experience in civil rights and personalinjury cases.e)

Plaintiffs meet the requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) becausecommon questions of law and fact predominate over questionsaffecting individual class members and a class action is superiorto any other method of adjudicating this dispute. In this case,where about 900 students were unlawfully searched byDefendants, a class action will permit common questions of lawand fact to be resolved in one proceeding, and will avoidburdening the court with numerous, separate lawsuits that couldresult in inconsistent judgments.

16

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 17 of 36

V. STATEMENT OF FACTSA.

Defendants Planned a Mass Search of All or Nearly All Studentsat Worth County High School.

34.

Defendant Hobby maintains a atarget lista of people he intends to

investigate because he suspects they have committed crimes. In early 2017, Hobbyplaced thirteen Worth County High School students on the atarget lista because hebelieved they might have brought drugs to the school.35.

In late March 2017, Hobby informed Harley Calhoun, the principal of

Worth County High School, that he planned to conduct a search at the school.36.

Hobby did not inform Calhoun that Hobby intended for his deputies to

conduct body searches of all or nearly all students in the school.37.

At no time did Calhoun, or any other school administrator, agree to

permit Defendants to conduct body searches of each student in the school.38.

The School Resource Officeraa Sylvester Police Department officer

assigned to Worth County High Schoolawas attending a training on April 14,2017, and was unaware of Defendantsa plan to conduct a mass search on that date.39.

Although Hobby did not share with school administrators that he

intended for his deputies to conduct a hands-on, body search of all students, thatwas his plan.40.

Hobby knew that his deputies would search the bodies of every or

nearly every student at Worth County High School, even though Defendants did17

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 18 of 36

not have individualized suspicion that any particular student, except possibly thethree students on the target list, was involved in any wrongdoing.41.

To ensure a sufficient number of officers to search the schoolas

approximately 900 students, Hobby ordered all of his deputies to report for workon the morning of the search.42.

Hobby personally ordered Defendants Brannen, Greene, Turner,

Whiddon, and the John and Jane Doe Defendants to search every or nearly everystudent at the school and personally instructed classrooms full of students to lineup in hallways and in the gym to be searched. Hobby knew that the searches werebeing performed with the level of intrusiveness described in this complaint andpersonally observed many of them.B.

Defendants Lacked Justification for the Body Searches of 900Students.

43.

Upon arriving at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017,

Hobby gave Principal Calhoun a written list of the names of thirteen students onhis atarget list.a Hobby ordered that the students on the target list be brought toadministrative offices and isolated there for the duration of his search.44.

Per Hobbyas order, the three students in attendance that day whose

names appeared on the target list were brought to school administrative officeswhere they were held until the search concluded.

18

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 19 of 36

45.

Defendants had no reason to believe that any student in school that

day (with the possible exception of the three students on the target list) had anyillegal substance or engaged in any unlawful activity.46.

Neither Calhoun nor any other school administrator had

individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that any student in school thatday (with the possible exception of the three students on the target list) had anyillegal substance or engaged in any unlawful activity.47.

With respect to Plaintiffs who were subject to searches of their bras or

underwear, Defendants had no reasonable suspicion of danger and no reason tobelieve that any student was hiding any controlled substance or other prohibiteditem in his or her undergarments.48.

At the request of Hobby, a school official made an announcement

over the intercom shortly after school began on the morning of April 14, 2017,indicating that the school was being placed on lockdown. This was the first timethat teachers learned that law enforcement activity of any kind would be occurringat the school that day.49.

Following the announcement regarding the lockdown, Plaintiffs were

confined either to their first-period classrooms, to the hallways immediatelyoutside their classrooms, or to the gym. Plaintiffsa cell phones were seized so thatthey could not reach their parents. Plaintiffs were prevented from contacting their

19

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 20 of 36

parents during the entire duration of the searchafrom approximately 8:00 a.m.until approximately 12:00 p.m.50.

During the lockdown and mass search, Defendants restricted studentsa

access to restrooms. Some students were not permitted to go to the restroom forthe entire four-hour lockdown period.51.

The deputies conducting the searchesaincluding searches that

involved the touching of or reaching inside Plaintiffsa undergarmentsasometimesdid not wear gloves or did not change their gloves between searches.52.

Despite searching approximately 900 students, Defendants did not

discover any illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia.C.

Defendantsa Body Searches of Plaintiffs Were Unreasonable,Aggressive, and Invasive.

K.A.53.

K.A., age 16, was in her first period literature class when Defendants

began their mass search. Sheriff Hobby entered K.A.as classroom and ordered thestudents to line up in the hallway with their hands on the wall. Deputy Whiddontook one of K.A.as arms, placed it higher up on the wall, and kicked her legs toopen them wider. Whiddon pulled the front of K.A.as bra away from her body bythe underwire and flipped it up. Whiddon also looked down the back and front ofK.A.as dress. Whiddon slid her hands from one of K.A.as ankles up to her pelvicarea. Whiddonas hands went underneath K.A.as dress as Whiddon felt up K.A.as20

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 21 of 36

leg. Whiddonas hands stopped on and cupped K.A.as vaginal area and buttocks.Whiddon then slid her hands down to the other ankle. Whiddon was wearinggloves, but did not change them before or after her search of K.A.T.S.54.

T.S., age 16, was in her first period art class when Defendants began

their mass search. When her class was called into the hallway, Worth County lawenforcement officials told T.S. and the other students in her class to place theirhands on the wall and spread their legs apart. Jane Doe 1 nudged T.S.as legsfurther apart, and began patting T.S.as thighs. Jane Doe 1 asked if T.S. had anypockets; T.S. said no. Jane Doe 1 then slid her hands down T.S.as legs, over herskirt. Jane Doe 1 then squeezed T.S.as breasts through her shirt, and patted thepockets of T.S.as jean jacket. Jane Doe 1 asked T.S. to lift the front of her shirt,and T.S. complied, lifting her shirt high enough to expose her stomach and navel.Jane Doe 1 also required T.S. to take off her shoes and lift her feet so that Jane Doe1 could see their soles.B.S.55.

B.S., age 15, was in his literature composition class when Defendants

began their mass search. When B.S.as class was called into the hallway, B.S. sawSheriff Hobby standing amongst his deputies. Before Defendant Brannen began tosearch B.S., he asked whether B.S. had anything that might cut or injure him; B.S.

21

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 22 of 36

said no. Brannen started at B.S.as torso and worked his way down. He pattedB.S.as shoulders and chest and abdomen with his open palms. Brannen spent threeto five seconds repeatedly grabbing with the tips of his fingers at the front of B.S.aspants, moving his fingers back and forth from B.S.as front pockets to his groin. Hecontinued doing so until B.S. informed him that one of his pockets contained a setof earbuds and that the other one was empty. During this time, Brannenasfingertips touched B.S.as penis and testicles, over clothes, four to five times. Next,Brannen pinched B.S.as buttocks repeatedly through B.S.as back pockets. Finally,Brannen pushed with his fingers on the top of B.S.as shoes.S.M.56.

S.M., age 18, arrived at the high school after Defendants had started

their mass search. S.M. participates in an early childhood education internship andhad been on an internship assignment with other students at a nearby primaryschool. When S.M. arrived at the high school, she encountered three lawenforcement officers with dogs in the parking lot. The officers ordered S.M. toexit the car and leave her possessions inside. S.M. was directed to the gym, whichwas full of other students. After S.M. waited in the gym for some time, DeputyWhiddon began to search S.M. Whiddon instructed S.M. to spread her legs andplace her hands, also spread, on the wall. Whiddon patted down each of S.M.aslegs, and rubbed her hand up the inside of each leg and over her groin. Whiddon

22

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 23 of 36

asked S.M. what she had in her back pockets. S.M. replied that she had somedollar bills and chap stick. Whiddon placed her hands in the back pockets ofS.M.as jeans. Whiddon then inserted the fingers on both of her hands four inchesdown into the waistband of S.M.as pants and moved them around from front toback. Next, Whiddon rubbed her hands over S.M.as bare stomach. Whiddoninserted her fingertips under the band of S.M.as bra in her armpits and shook S.M.forcefully for three to five seconds. Finally, Whiddon ran her hands down S.M.asbare arms, and directed S.M. to remove her sandals. Whiddon was not wearinggloves during her search of S.M. Sheriff Hobby was present at the time Whiddonsearched S.M.A.W.57.

A.W., age 15, was in her world history class when Defendants started

their mass search. When her class was called out into the hallway, A.W. and herclassmates were ordered to line up with their hands against the wall and their legsspread. A.W. was wearing a sleeveless dress and cover-up over her arms. DeputyWhiddon asked A.W. if she had pockets; although A.W. said no, Whiddonsearched for pockets anyway. At Whiddonas direction, A.W. turned to faceWhiddon, and Whiddon reached her hands around A.W.as midsection, between hercover-up and her dress, around to her back. A.W. then turned back to the wall, andWhiddon touched her knees to spread them further apart. On one leg and then the

23

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 24 of 36

other, Whiddon moved both her hands from A.W.as knees up to her thighs, withinone inch of her vaginal area. Whiddon then reached her hand over A.W.asshoulder and into the front of A.W.as dress, and moved her hand left and rightbetween her breasts. Whiddon placed her fingertips under the underwire of A.W.asbra and touched her breasts.D.J.58.

D.J., age 16, was in his social studies class when Defendants started

their mass search. When his class was called out into the hallway, D.J. and hisclassmates were lined up against the wall, and told to astay stilla and afaceforward,a with their hands on the wall and their legs spread. At some point, adeputy asked D.J. whether he had already been searched; D.J. answered in thenegative. Deputy Greene then conducted a search of D.J.as body. Greene rubbedthe palms of his hands over D.J.as lower and upper arms, shoulders, chest, back,and abdomen. Next, he placed a hand inside one of the front pockets of D.J.aspants, which contained pencils. Greene then spent over ten seconds using hisfingers to cup and grope D.J.as penis and testicles through his pants. After D.J.reacted by shifting his position, Greene sped up the remainder of the search,rubbing the palms of his hands down the insides and outsides of both of D.J.as legs.Finally, Greene removed D.J.as shoes and checked inside them, and ran his handsacross the bottoms of D.J.as socks.

24

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 25 of 36

K.P.59.

K.P., age 18, was in her economics class when Defendants started

their mass search. When her class was called out into the hallway, K.P. was told tostand with her hands on the wall and her legs spread. She was standing with herlegs about shoulder-width apart, but Deputy Whiddon kicked them further apart.Whiddon told K.P. not to look back at her. Whiddon unzipped K.P.as jacket andasked K.P. whether it had pockets. Despite K.P.as statement that it did not havepockets, Whiddon reached inside to feel for pockets. K.P. took the jacket off.Then, Whiddon rubbed her hands from K.P.as waist up to her breasts and squeezedher breasts five times through her shirt. Whiddon moved the front center of K.P.asbra left and right, and then lifted the underwire of her bra so that it was sittingabove her bare breasts. Whiddon then groped her breasts twice through her shirt.Next, Whiddon put her hands into K.P.as jeans pockets, at an angle towards hergroin area. Through the pockets, Whiddonas fingertips went under K.P.asunderwear and touched her vaginal area. Whiddon also patted down K.P.as legs,from high on her thighs down to her ankles. Finally, Whiddon told K.P. to take offher shoes; she looked inside them and then threw them back at K.P. K.P. had topull her bra down herself at the end of the search.

25

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 26 of 36

L.H.60.

L.H., age 15, was in her algebra class when Defendants started their

mass search. When her class was called out into the hallway, L.H. and herclassmates were ordered to put their hands on the wall, spread their legs apart, andremain quiet. At the time Deputy Whiddon searched L.H., L.H. was standing nextto a male classmate. Whiddon first patted L.H.as chest. Then, she moved to L.H.aslegs, and patted down both of them simultaneously, with one hand on each, fromthe tops of her thighs to her ankles. Whiddon took L.H.as shoes off and bangedthem together, and patted L.H.as feet. Then, Whiddon returned to L.H.as upperbody. She reached up under L.H.as shirt, lifted her bra, and touched her barebreasts, including her nipples. Whiddon also shook L.H.as bra. Next, Whiddoninserted her fingers about two inches into the waistband of L.H.as jeans, betweenher jeans and her underwear, and moved her fingers across the front of herabdomen. Finally, Whiddon told L.H. that she could put her shoes on and turnaround. Whiddon was wearing gloves, but did not change them before or after hersearch of L.H.J.E.61.

J.E., age 16, was in his agriculture class when Defendants started their

mass search. When his class was called into the hallway, J.E. and his classmateswere told to take off their shoes and stand with their hands on the wall. Deputy

26

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 27 of 36

Turner asked J.E. if he had anything in his pockets that could poke him; J.E.replied that he had headphones, bubble gum, and a tube of chap stick. Turner tookthe chap stick, applied some to his glove, and smelled the substance. Turner thenput his hands in J.E.as back pockets. Next, Turner twice rubbed his hands up anddown J.E.as chest, and inserted his hands between the buttons on his collared shirt,but over his undershirt, to rub J.E.as underarms. Turning to J.E.as lower body,Turner used both hands to rub down each of J.E.as legs, starting at his thighs andending at his ankles. Then, Turner reached between J.E.as legs, cupped histesticles, and squeezed them twice; he also touched J.E.as penis through his pants.Turner next touched J.E.as buttocks though his pants, and squeezed them twice.D. Defendantsa Unlawful Mass Search Injured Plaintiffs.62.

Defendantsa actions harmed the Plaintiffs by causing them injury

including anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation.63.

Defendantsa actions caused Plaintiffs to experience fear, shame, and

emotional distress.64.

Defendantsa actions harmed the Plaintiffs by damaging their ability to

trust law enforcement officers and persons in positions of authority in general.E. Defendants Violated Clearly Established Law.65.

It is clearly established that law enforcement officers violate the

Constitution when, at their own instigation, in an effort to obtain evidence of

27

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 28 of 36

illegal drug possession, they seize and search the body of any person (including astudent) without probable cause.666.

It is clearly established that probable cause requires individualized

suspicion, and that mere attendance at a large school at which a few students aresuspected of possessing drugs is not sufficient to establish probable cause orotherwise render reasonable the seizure and search of the body of a student, by andat the instigation of law enforcement officers, for the purpose of obtainingevidence of illegal drug possession.7See State v. Young, 216 S.E.2d 586, 591-92 (Ga. 1975) (explaining that whileattenuated Fourth Amendment protections apply to searches conducted by apublicschool officials,a aentirely without the participation of law enforcement officers,aalaw enforcement officers, of course, are bound by the full panoply of FourthAmendment rightsa when searching students); see also State v. K.L.M., 628 S.E.2d651, 652-53 (Ga. App. 2006) (requiring probable cause for the in-school search of astudent by a law enforcement officer even though the search was directed by theprincipal a[b]ecause [the officer] was a law enforcement officer who participated inthe searcha); Patman v. State, 244 S.E.2d 118, 120 (Ga. App. 2000) (aUnlike aschool official, a police officer must have probable cause to search a suspect.a),disapproved of on other grounds by State v. Kazmierczak, 771 S.E.2d 473, 476-77(Ga. App. 2015). Cf. Stephens v. DeGiovanni, 852 F.3d 1298, 1316 n.14 (11th Cir.2017) (recognizing that alaw can be clearly established for qualified immunitypurposesa by decisions of athe highest court of the state where the case arosea(quoting Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1197 n.5 (11th Cir. 2002)).6

See Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979) (a[A] personas mere propinquity toothers independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give riseto probable cause to search that person. Where the standard is probable cause, asearch or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularizedwith respect to that person.a (citation omitted)); see also Swint v. City of Wadley,Ala., 51 F.3d 988, 997 (11th Cir. 1995) (aProbable cause to arrest one suspect, andeven probable cause to believe that a number of other or unidentified people had sold7

28

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 29 of 36

67.

Defendants had not obtained warrants to arrest or to search Plaintiffs.

68.

Plaintiffs did not consent to being seized or searched.

69.

None of the searches, including the searches of Plaintiffs, occurred

incident to lawful arrests.70.

There existed no exigent circumstances to justify the searches of

Plaintiffs.71.

Even if Defendants had seized and searched the bodies of Plaintiffs at

the behest of school administrators and for purposes of maintaining an educationalenvironment, they would still have violated Plaintiffsa clearly establishedconstitutional rights by conducting mass, physically intrusive searches without anyindividualized suspicion.8

drugs in the establishment in the past, did not give the officers carte blanche to seizeeveryone who happened to be in the Club when the two raids took place.a).See Safford United Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 374-77 (2009)(establishing that aspecific justificationsa are required for an intrusive search of astudent by school officialsanot generalities, but rather reasonable suspicion that theparticular drugs the particular student is believed to be carrying pose a danger, orreasonable suspicion that the student is at that time hiding those drugs near herprivate parts); see also Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executivesa Assan, 489 U.S. 602, 624(1989) (explaining that only in alimited circumstances, where the privacy interestsimplicated by the search are minimal, and where an important government interestfurthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement ofindividualized suspicion, [may] a search . . . be conducted despite the absence ofsuch suspiciona); Thomas ex rel. Thomas v. Roberts, 261 F.3d 1160, 1169 (11th Cir.2001) (concluding that an intrusive, mass search of students by school officialsviolated the Fourth Amendment because the searches were conducted without8

29

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 30 of 36

72.

Defendants had fair warning that their conduct was unconstitutional

because a mass search of nearly 900 public school children by law enforcementofficers without any individualized suspicion clearly and obviously violates theConstitution. Gray ex. Rel. Alexander v. Bostic, 458 F.3d 1295, 1306-07 (11th Cir.2006) (discussing aobvious claritya cases in the school seizure context).73.

Based on the totality of the circumstances, the seizures and searches

of Plaintiffs were plainly unreasonable. The conduct of Defendants lies soaobviously at the very core of what the Fourth Amendment prohibits that theunlawfulness of the conduct was [or should have been] readily apparent . . . .aSmith v. Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416, 1419 (11th Cir. 1997).VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEFCOUNT IUNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH AND SEIZUREViolation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to theUnited States Constitution, Brought Under 42 U.S.C. ASS 1983,and Violation of Art. 1, Sec. 1, Para. XIII of the Georgia Constitution(by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants)74.

Defendants detained Plaintiffs and other Worth County High School students;impeded their liberty by requiring them to remain in particular locations in theschool for four hours; and subjected Plaintiffs to intrusive, hands-on, physicalsearches of their bodies.76.

Defendantsa mass search and seizure was not justified at its inception.

Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to the searches and seizures described herein eventhough they had no reason to believe that Plaintiffs had engaged in any unlawfulactivity. Defendants had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the searches ofPlaintiffs would turn up evidence that any student not on the target list had violatedthe law.77.

federal and state constitutions and no reasonable officer could have believed thatsubjecting Plaintiffs to these searches and seizures was legal in the absence ofindividualized suspicion or probable cause.79.

In each and every instance set forth above, Defendants acted

intentionally, with malice, and with actual intent to cause injury in the performance

31

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 32 of 36

of their official functions. Defendants knew that requiring Plaintiffs to submit tothe searches described herein violated Plaintiffsa constitutional rights.80.

Hobby and other supervisors within the Worth County Sheriffas

Office were confronted with and personally witnessed their officersa illegal acts,possessed the power to prevent them, and chose not to act.81.

Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the violation of

Plaintiffsa rights, and the harm Plaintiffs suffered as a result, because eachDefendant personally participated in the actions described herein, expresslyordered or directed, or implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly condoned orfailed to remedy the wrongs at issue.82.

Defendantsa above-described actions were willful, deliberate, and

malicious, and involved reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffsa rights andshould be punished or deterred by an award of punitive or enhanced damagesagainst Defendants as permitted by law.

32

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 33 of 36

COUNT IIVIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACYViolation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,Brought Under 42 U.S.C. ASS 1983,and Violation of Art. I, Sec. I, Para. I of the Georgia Constitution(by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants)83.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding

paragraphs of this complaint as if fully stated herein.84.

Without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or legal authority,

Defendants detained Plaintiffs and other Worth County High School students forseveral hours and subjected Plaintiffs and other students to intrusive, hands-on,physical searches of their bodies by law enforcement officers.85.

Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to the mass searches described herein

even though they had no reason to believe that Plaintiffs had engaged in anyunlawful activity.86.

Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to the body searches described herein

without the authorization or cooperation of school administrators.87.

Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to body searches that violated

Plaintiffsa right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution and under Ga. Const. art. I, Sec. I, Para. I.

33

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 34 of 36

88.

Defendants had fair warning that their conduct would violate the

federal and state constitutions and no reasonable officer could have believed thatrequiring Plaintiffs to submit to these searches was legal.89.

In each and every instance set forth above, Defendants acted

intentionally, with malice, and with actual intent to cause injury in the performanceof their official functions. Defendants knew that subjecting Plaintiffs and otherstudents to the searches described herein violated Plaintiffsa constitutional rights.90.

Hobby and other supervisors within the Worth County Sheriffas

Office were confronted with and personally witnessed their officersa illegal acts,possessed the power to prevent them, and chose not to act.91.

Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the violation of

Plaintiffsa rights, and the harm they suffered as a result, because each Defendantpersonally participated in the actions described herein, expressly ordered ordirected, or implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly condoned or failed toremedy the wrongs at issue.92.

Defendantsa above-described actions were willful, deliberate, and

malicious, and involved reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffsa rights andshould be punished or deterred by an award of punitive or enhanced damagesagainst Defendants as permitted by law.

34

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 35 of 36

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, Plaintiffs accordingly pray for the following relief:a)

Certification of a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure23;

b)

Compensatory damages, in an amount to be determined by the jury;

c)

Punitive damages according to federal and state law;

d)

A declaratory judgment stating that a law enforcement officer violatesa studentas rights under the United States and Georgia Constitutionswhen he conducts a search of the studentas body absent voluntaryconsent or individualized suspicion that the student has violated thelaw;